In the just the
first chapter of The Stranger, as a
class we made several serious judgments on Meursault’s character. After reading chapter 3 in Part 2, it seems
that these initial judgments are the reason that Meursault is convicted: In the whole court scene we NEVER hear about
the actual events that occur in Chapter 6. Besides Meursault mentioning the
brief “narrative of what I’d done,” (87) the entire court scene in chapter 3
ONLY talks about the events preceding the murder and each of the witnesses only
talk of Meursault’s character. There are no
Arab witnesses and none of the witnesses discuss the murder. The prosecuting
lawyer tries to convince the jury to judge Meursault on his character and for
his reactions to his mother’s death. The
defending lawyer catches on to the prosecutor’s plan and says, “Come now, is my
client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?” (96) Why can the
jury not be convinced to judge Meursault for KILLING a man? Why is it that
Meursault’s attitude towards life is the reason for his conviction, not his
killing of the Arab?
The
court systems are clearly extremely
racist. Raymond gets away with physical
abuse by just one testimony from Meursault.
Meursault could have easily
escaped imprisonment by any tiny stretch of the truth. Why are there NO Arab witnesses at the
trial? Why is it that Meursault is
convicted because of his character and not because he shot an Arab? It could be that killing an Arab is not a
huge deal in the eyes of the court and can easily be justified, but Meursault
gives no understandable explanation for why he did what he did.
I
judge Meursault for shooting the Arab, not for his character. Everyone has different ways of dealing with
grief, and even though Meursault’s actions following his mother’s death are
pretty socially unacceptable, we can learn a lot from how Meursault copes with
death. He simply accepts that it has
happened, that is would have happened at some point in time, and that
“grieving” for someone accomplishes nothing.
Even though I think he should at least think about his memories and relationship with Maman more, we all
eventually come to similar conclusions, just not the day after.
When I was reading chapter 3 the line you quote on page 96 made me question the focus of the trial, too. It does come across as strange how there is little attention given to the Arabs and Meursault is instead scrutinized for his behavior in an event unrelated to the murder. However, the prosecution might be only focusing on these aspects so they can set up an unsatisfactory image of Meursault before moving onto the crime. Making Meursault appear to be uncaring and emotionless would help the prosecution in convicting him, even if the evidence used is irrelevant to the actual crime.
ReplyDeleteEven from the author's point of view, the Arabs don't seem to exist as actual people as much as plot devices. The Arab was only put in the story in order to get Meursault arrested for his murder. His sister was only in the story to introduce some conflict and emphasize Meursault's indifference.
ReplyDeleteYah and I think this gets back to Jonah's point in class where the Arabs just seem to be "popping" up wherever Camus needs them to be in the plot and don't seem through the narration to really make any decisions for themselves.
DeleteI never found anything particularly wrong with Meursault's character at the beginning of the book, contrary to just about everyone else, but as I read on, more and more stood out to me about Meursault that seemed a bit off. Unfortunately, Camus decided to write the court and jury as average people who think of Meursault as the devil as soon as they learn of his lack of empathy, The court is also run in such a way that Meursault isn't judged for what he did, but for who he is, which is quite unfair. I agree with you in that Meursault should be judged based on his actions, rather than his thoughts, but Meursault did seem to violate some of the basic ideology of the people in the court.
ReplyDeleteI think that because the system is racist there is not a very harsh penalty for killing an Arab man. Thus when the case is first called I think that the defense lawyer believed that it would be easy for Meursault to get off. Because of this racist system the jury judges more the character than the crime. I believe that what causes the jury to condemn him to death is fear. They fear that someone who feels no remorse for killing another person will go out and kill a white person just the same as an Arab. This makes them believe that they are in danger because of Meursault, and thus this is what they base their decision on.
ReplyDeleteI think that Meursault's lack of remorse for killing the Arab man was not completely a reflection of racism. I believe that it goes back to Meursault's total disregard for life. The books tells us multiple times, that death doesn't really matter to Meursault, whether it be his or anyone else's. In his mind, the death of the Arab man was destined to happen, just like his life was destined to end.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meursault's lack of remorse is because of his mindset, not that he disregards the Arab for his race, but what bothered me more was how the courts reacted to his murder of the Arab. The courts + French people in the courts seemed to care more that Meursault didn't show remorse and how he reacted to his mother's death than his MURDER of the Arab.
DeleteSome interesting points from Jean-Paul Sartre's (a contemporary of Camus) existentialist philosophy stress the importance of refraining from judging others' character or actions, because all that really matters is what action you yourself take. But you make the important point that it is nearly impossible to refrain from making judgements about others when their actions are as drastic as the murder of another. I think Camus might be trying to offset this normal human response to murder by making the Arab almost a non-being, although this obviously doesn't justify the murder in our eyes, just possibly makes it less significant. An important judgement that Camus tries to draw out is that which is made about Mersault by the French people, who convict him not so much because of the murder itself, but moreso because of how they are disturbed by Mersault's absence of motive or emotional response to the killing, which are both "strange" to them.
ReplyDelete